.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-believers-atheist.html?_r=1&src=tp (with thanks to Thomas Kidd)

--
We can only guess at why one man is respectful of Christianity and another antagonistic. Is it damnable pride, the suppression of truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18); or is it honest ignorance like Saul’s (1 Tim 1:13)? God knows: He reads our motives like words printed on a page, like runes chiseled in the heart.

Lewis Redux

“Alas, there is no escape for our friend, Captain. Bitter indeed for him to be thus trapped at the Gate of Sir Olaval the Blessed.”

“Faith, Arxella. Ghossus may pursue, but he cannot overtake. The Gate shall open to our friend, but to Ghossus it shall remain fast.”

“But Captain, how can this be? Ghossus knows the Rune. Our friend does not. Even if he was within the walls, Ghossus has but to chant the hallowed Adoramus and the Gate would yield.”

“You know not well the lore, Arxella. The Rune’s power is not in the words but the meaning. Ghossus may recite the Adoramus to the end of time, but he will never intend its meaning, the Praise of Truth. The Gate opens to those alone who mean the words even if they do not know the words. Our friend will enter in no matter what words he uses if the Rune is in his heart.”
--
Cf. Romans 2:26-29

.
…we would need no Judge (Romans 2:16).

--
I’m almost embarrassed at how often I quote this passage from dear St. Lewis:

“Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world, and live and not to have seen him.

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome.

But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash.

He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?

The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name of Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?

I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.

Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” –C.S. Lewis, “The Last Battle”.

===
P.S. Re Matt 10:33 – Peter also denied Christ, but found grace. The formula is not irreversible until death.

Had Saul of Tarsus died immediately after his Damascus road experience, we would have said of him what you have said of Hitchens. More so, I deem.

Re the sheep and the goats of Matthew 25, two things:

1) Whatever else it might convey, clearly this passage, coupled with Christ’s statements elsewhere that some of the first would be last and the last first, conveys the same idea: that Judgment Day holds in store some surprises.

The New Bible Dictionary reminds us, “The object of teaching by parables … is to enlighten the listener by presenting him with interesting illustrations, from which he can draw out for himself moral and religious truth… Over-elaboration and over-simplification are both to be avoided in the interpretation of the parables, for in few spheres of Gospel exegesis is it easier to be tendentious.” -- “TNBD: Parables”

2) The whole point of my first comment was to express the Biblical plausibility of hope that heaven’s joyous surprises just might include discovering Christopher Hitchens was one of those last who proved to be first.

“Love believes all (possible-through-grace) things.”

Gregory (gonna roll with that until I'm told otherwise), I think our much loved Mr. Haggard's point is simpler: If we allow ourselves to become convinced that we can beyond a shadow of a doubt know who is saved and who is not based on their actions, we may be 100% correct - but we may also become bitter toward others. Would God have us be sourpusses?

So the point is not orthodoxy, but orthopraxy. Fullness of joy and all that nonsense. (Didn't John Wesley will himself to never laugh? Of course, he *was* an Arminian...)

Speaking of orthodoxy, how do you suppose Chesterton could not only debate Bernard Shaw, but befriend him? (Or are the ways of all Papists a mystery by definition? :-) )

Finally, what witness do we have if we gloat?

Of course, Jason. You're quite right about that. But I don't think that's what Rolley was arguing. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe he was suggesting a possibility--however unlikely--that Hitchens was really a redeemed, blood-bought, penitent, new creation who had faith in Jesus Christ without ever knowing it.

That, I have trouble with.

But we can't rule out miraculous unknowable conversions of the soul, Gregory.

Notice, Rolley, that in the passage cited, Jesus speaks thusly to *all* of the sheep and to *all* of the goats, not to some few who find themselves mysteriously in the righteous or unrighteous camps on Christ's right and left. Unless you want to argue that all of the "sheep" will be as confused as Hitchens as to how they became sheep, I would suggest that this is a poor passage with which to argue for unwitting justification of men like him, especially since Hitchens (as far as I know) never performed the kinds of salvation-empowered acts described, and even more since just a few chapters earlier, Jesus says in no uncertain terms, "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 10:33)

If someone who--until his last words--rejected the very existence and goodness of God, let alone the deity of Christ, and actually forged his career and reputation out of mocking believers, does not fit this "deniers" category, I can't imagine who would. Hitchens, barring some miraculous, unknowable conversion of his soul in the last moments before death, more aptly fits the type described by Peter in his second epistle, in chapter 3:3-7.

.
I sometimes wonder if part of heaven’s joys will be the utter surprise of the Matthew 19:30; 25:34-40; 10:31 passages, gloriously realized in the case of just such as this dear fellow and innumerable others who seemingly have more in common with him than with those we Christians count our brothers and sisters.

No, I’m not a Universalist; if you know anything about me at all, you know I’m not by any wild stretch a Universalist, or even a Rob Bell-ite. But if one does a careful study of the passages one can’t help but get the impression that there is more than wishful thinking involved in the ephemeral impulse, so quickly dismissed by our formulaic theology, that hell is, in fact, for the obstinately, willfully, deliberately, fully and finally wicked God-haters and people-haters and haters of good, rather than for the confused and deceived and misguided and even oppositional (as Mr. Hitchens surely was), who, because they have no personal assurance of an unspeakably gracious Savior, are hostile to Christianity. For, after all, as Jesus said, it is the one who knows s/he is forgiven much that loves much; and the converse is true: the one who lacks such assurance is prone always to be on the offensive, driven by deep, unmet needs.

But as the passages cited demonstrate, one needn’t *know* one is forgiven to be forgiven, though it sure makes life – and death – a whole lot easier to manage.

So rest in peace, Christopher Hitchens, and know that I have hope, not in your worthiness to share heaven’s eternal joys, any more than I have hope in my own worthiness for same; but hope that He who is mighty to save and does not break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax, who understands WHY some do not “become Christians” – at least in a form recognizable to the rest of us – understands you better than you understood yourself; and is able, in response to your amazed wonder expressed in the words, “when came I unto Thee?” (Matt 25:39), to give the perfect answer that will cause you, and us, to see darkly no more, but face to Face.

“I am no less understanding and forgiving of the atheist who insults me than I am of the blind man who steps on my foot.”